Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36941)	8/11/2002 1:13:42 AM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<< Interesting way you have of putting things there, jcky...that if Saddam stages an unprovoked WMD attack on Tel Aviv, then Sharon may become the loose cannon by responding? >> Unprovoked? Do you call a march toward Baghdad by American troops unprovoked from Saddam's point of view. Now that really is an interesting way of looking at this situation. I'm certainly not defending Saddam here, but if we are determined to invade Iraq then we better be realistic about the possible consequences. And right now there is a river, named de Nile, running through Washington. << It is by saying things like this, now, that Sharon hopes to reestablish Israel's deterrent, and not have Iraqi scuds with chemical warheads landing in Tel Aviv in the first place. >> There are two points I would like to make here, Nadine. The first point is that Saddam wouldn't give a hoot what happens if Washington is going to corner and exterminate him. What does he have to lose by employing his scuds with chemical weapons on Israel if he perceives there is no diplomatic outlet available? He's a dead man, either way. Ironically, one of the options left for the resolution of this impasse is for Washington to guarantee the safe harbor of Saddam if the US elects to invade Iraq (in exchange for his restraint on using WMDs). The second point is that if Israel believes Saddam is deterrable by making this threat now then it is very possible that he can be contained. And containment is a more viable option than invasion without a legitimate reason for pre-emptive war.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36941)	8/11/2002 11:17:51 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

Hmmm. I'd have to say that if Iraq attacked Israel with chemical or biological weapons, Israel would have the right to respond with nuclear weapons. It's not like Israel has a lot of territory to spare. (But then, I thought Hiroshima was justified. Not sure about Nagasaki, on the matter of timing mostly, and to a lesser extent because it seems like overkill for a torpedo factory. Despite all the blathering yadda-yadda blather one reads repeated by the credulous, if you actually look into it for yourself, you'll see that both did, in fact, have military installations, Hiroshima more than Nagasaki, which was a secondary target.) Hmmmm, again. Wonder where, if anywhere, Israel's nuclear weapons are aimed?